That's astonishing. Surely they can't name an unchanged lineup for Perth can they?

I think this Test really might have destroyed England. To get outplayed completely and lose in Brisbane was one thing, but to dominate for much of this game, and to compete more than evenly for most of the rest of it and STILL lose is another thing entirely.

I'd say it's on par with the way Bangladesh felt after losing this test

The color of immortality, nature and envy - you are truly a unique person. While clearly the color of nature, you also symbolize rebirth, fertility and hope in the world. On the other side of the spectrum, a natural aptitude to money with green coming to signify money and possibly even *********!

Playing for a draw is a good way to end up losing 9 times out of 10. If all they wanted to do was end up with a 0-0 series result and thus retain the urn, they should have named 10 batsmen and Jones at 11.

Presumably they would like to win a match at some point, which means you need to select bowlers who you think can take wickets. He's got two very good bowlers in Hoggard and Flintoff, one bowler who could be good, but has not produced any consistent form for two years in Harmison, and two bowlers who are not test quality in Giles and Anderson. He can say that he decided they didn't need two spinners for this test, but wow, Pieterson sure bowled a lot of overs if that was the case, given the team has five other designated bowlers already.

Also, playing for draws when you are 1-0 down, or as is the case 2-0 down, doesn't make a lick of sense.

I think the comment that most gets me is "Look at Australia where (Shane) Warne had that 100 partnership with (Michael) Clarke (in the first innings). Those runs put the pressure back on to us."

He`s completely missing the point. England`s bowling wasn`t up to getting this pair out. If you have a good bowling attack, you`ll get Warne out and go through the tail. Yet he looks at it like Australia`s batting-depth did it.

Only England could choke after such a good position, to think that the fate of the Ashes depended on 4 overs...........

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

1) Had double pneumonia as a kid, as did my twin sis. Doctors told my parents to pray that we lived through the night. Dad said **** off, I'm an atheist, you ****s better save my kids, etc. Then prayed anyway.

Well i think Dunc is right, obviously people are going to go on about his selection now that England have lost. But up until this morning England had done very well & were in a position to save this test, Australia have to be given credit for how they pressured England's batsmen & got a victory from nowhere.

Everyone is on Gilo's case now, but his selection does hold some water. Its not like Giles hasn't made runs up to now in the series while his bowling has showed signs of improvement. I agree that Panesar would have made a huge difference to the bowling attack but given questions of Freddie's fitness & the balance of the team which is a VERY IMPORTANT area it would be hard to pick Panesar, also the fact that Warne took all of 80 plus overs in this test to take is 5 wickets as Dunc pointed out is a good point & he's a leggie, no way could we say just because Panesar is a more attacking bowler he would have been more successful in aiding England to get 20 wickets.

But in the future England should Panesar all the time & has i keep saying need a stable keeper-bat. Once all are fit, relieved of personal issures & the selectors make some bold decisions come next summer over here this would be my best England XI:

yea i was one of them, but as i said the fact the Warne took 80 odd overs to take his 5 for, no way can we say even if Panesar had played even if he would have been a better attacking option than Gilo that he would have caused serious problems given that he's an offie.

But seriously though, what is the point of Giles being in the team? I mean, they say that he can bat, but he was out for a duck today. They say that Monty's a bad fielder, but Giles dropped Ponting on 35, which cost England 107 runs. And then Monty can actually take wickets.

That's what I've been saying to everyone in work all day. Including the one guy who championed Giles pre-Ashes "because he got 59 in the last Test." Bla.

Can I justs ay the Aussie fans make me laugh. Absoloute silence for all four days, and when you do decide to chirp up, its awesome songs like "2-0, 2-0!" and "Look at the scoreboard!" Honestly, your fans are awful,

I was livid with Jonesy, chasing the widest ball of the game and got out. He was more than capable of adding 20 more runs at least which really wouldve seen a better finish to the game. There were 2 awful decisions against us (Yeah, I know you Aussies had it last year) and our bowling attack is depleted, and final question, why the heck isnt Monty playing? giles is innefective and a negative choice. Monty is by far the better bwoler and must be feeling like the unluckiest man in the world not to be playing.